Why then, if an age of 8 or 9 is considered old enough to take on the responsibilities of an adult, and does this apply only in the case of becoming king, or head of a household at any level in society? is it so very often said, by all manner of authors, that Tutankhamun was, at first, simply a puppet for Ay. This idea of him having no real power is very prevalent, so, do different rules to to Amunhotep III than they seem to do for Tutankhamun, either at 8 or 9 they had power, or they did not. Is it not feasable that if in the normal course of events a boy was not considered to be an adult until 14, that even if king, they may not have had full power. Certainly they would have had advice, but how easy it is for advice to a 9 year old to be expressed in such a way that it is the desire of those who give the advice that is followed, and not the desire of the king, who may prefer to play.

Why then, if an age of 8 or 9 is considered old enough to take on the responsibilities of an adult, and does this apply only in the case of becoming king, or head of a household at any level in society?

It's difficult to tell if a younger age of responsibility applied to the royals rather than the populace in general. The youngest king to assume the throne was 6 years old (Pepi II), although it is very possible that his mother, Ankhsenpepi/Ankhsenmeryre II, served as his interregnum regent. Yet in other cultures, marriage and responsibility often went together: for example, Julius Caesar and his first wife were married at 10 and 7 respectively - his uncle Gaius Marius had made him Priest of Jupiter (Flamen Dialis) for which he had to married - but the wife was raised as his sister, and the marriage wasn't consummated for another 10 years.

According to Janssen and Janssen (2007), who wrote about growing up in ancient Egypt, Egyptian adulthood level for responsibility could be quite young, with children as young as 8 years given adult responsibilities, as well as betrothed and married by 10 years of age. One has to recall that the age of puberty in ancient times in North Africa was much younger than it is today, and this was likely due to the shorter lifespan (which in ancient times was roughly 30-40 years on the average). Women in general (even today) reach puberty at different ages, ranging from 8-12 years old depending on genetics, race and environment, and women in warmer environments, such as Egypt, reach puberty at a much earlier age than those in colder environments, such as Europe and the US.

Ikon wrote:

is it so very often said, by all manner of authors, that Tutankhamun was, at first, simply a puppet for Ay. This idea of him having no real power is very prevalent, so, do different rules to to Amunhotep III than they seem to do for Tutankhamun, either at 8 or 9 they had power, or they did not.

People who write that Tutankhamun was a "puppet" of Ay are also usually the ones who like to support conspiracy theories that Ay also killed Tutankhamun in order to take over the throne. As Tutankhamun was not murdered, this tends to discount that part of the theory.

Ay served as both Tutankhamun's /it nTr/, or 'mentor' to the king, and as his vizier, while Horemheb served as Tutankhamun's general of armies, and, if his coronation decree is to be believed, as the king's "deputy regent," which literally meant that he spoke on behalf of the king's interests in certain political situations. So, in both cases, Tutankhamun would have relied upon these men for advice, for guidance, and so on. But no matter what the case, Tutankhamun was no more a "puppet" of these men than Amenhotep III would have been of Yuya, who served as his /it nTr/, for which I have never heard the same said of him. Of course, Mutemwiya, Amenhotep's mother, was alive at his accession, but there's no evidence she served as his interregnum regent.

For all we know, Tutankhamun's mother may have still been living when he assumed the throne, and possibly served as his regent: we just have no information to state this was the case. Would she then be seen as the "puppet master" of Tutankhamun, and if not, why? If no parent was still living when Tutankhamun ascended the throne, and he was the same age as his grandfather at accession, then why can't we see Ay and Horemheb merely as the king's advisors and mentors, the same as we tend to view Yuya?

Every royal child would surely have received instruction at early age that his standing was above that of other people, and that at some time in the future (particularly that if that prince were the sole heir), he would learn that while he received advice from others, eventually the responsibility was his for any final decision.

I think we tend to think that a child of 9 years is "too young" to have responsibility, but even in modern times recall that until 1963, the UK age for criminal responsibility began at 7 years of age (now it is 10 years old), and even today, certain Islamic obligations begin for Muslim children at age 7. If we see responsibility for religious and criminal acts can begin quite young, even in modern times, then why is it so difficult to think that royal youth could assume responsible positions at an equally young age, particularly in ancient times when lifespans were shorter?

Ikon wrote:

Is it not feasable that if in the normal course of events a boy was not considered to be an adult until 14, that even if king, they may not have had full power. Certainly they would have had advice, but how easy it is for advice to a 9 year old to be expressed in such a way that it is the desire of those who give the advice that is followed, and not the desire of the king, who may prefer to play.

While anything is possible, it seems you tend to trivialise youth as being simple and malleable: I would think, as noted above, that royal instruction of a potential king would begin quite early - first from his parents - that an heir's standing as royal also required responsibilities that were distinctly his, and could not be passed over to others. He would have surely been taught that his role was to rule a land, and in that regard, make decisions for himself, no matter what his age.

Neseret, yes, I would agree with nearly all your post, and yes, I have read "Growing up in Ancient Egypt" and re-read a few relevant parts before making my post. I don't "trivialise youth as being simple and malleable" as you suggest, but simply make an observation about humanity, for to say that an 8 or 9 year old is some serious "nerd" rather removes childhood from them, and yes, I do understand the context of your remark. We do not know if Tutankhamun was ever trained to be king as he may have never been expected to reign, or at least at so young an age. Amunhotep III was not initially the heir, it was Crown Prince Amenemhat, and do we know when he died, and how long between his death and that of Thutmose IV. How much training did the future Amenhotep III get before he became king?.

I mentioned an age of 14 for becoming an adult, though this was really just an example based on what seems to have been normal practice in other parts of the ancient world and in most of Europe until comparatively recent times, I don't mean it to be seen as "set in stone" in my thinking. The evidence from Egypt, as you will know, seems unclear, for instance in "Growing up in Ancient Egypt", the authors show that boys as young as 3 or 7 were circumcised and then seen to be adults. But this is vague, there is insufficient evidence about this, and I think 3 is certainly not old enough in any culture to be seen as adult, or 7. You mention Pepy II, and I would say it is highly likely that different rules applied to a child who became king, than other families. Yet consider two mummies, that of Crown Prince Amenemhat and the KV35 unknown boy. Both seem to be about 11 or 12, and one, Amenemhat, was certainly a crown prince, and the other, particularly if he is prince Thutmose the owner of "Mrs cat" was as well, but I have serious doubts that he is Thutmose, and I have expressed those elsewhere. Yet at about 12, both mummies show they are still, I contend, in Egyptian eyes, boys, not adults. Both still have sidelocks, and the KV35 prince, as mentioned by G.E. Smith, not circumcised. Prince Amenemhat is not well documented at all, seemingly only two photos existing, and no medical report to say if he is or is not circumcised. But I would suggest as that they come from the same family, presumably uncle and nephew, or great nephew, that if KV35 is not circumcised, and, it seems, though not 100%, not seen as an adult, then neither would prince Amenemhat. Either, depending on fate, could have become king, as an unmarried boy, not adult, at any time if either of their fathers had suddenly dropped down dead before they themselves died young. The point I make, rather drawn out perhaps, is that in that family at that time in history, 11 or 12 year olds, destined to become king themselves, and based on what their mummies show us, were not seen as adults. Would Amunhotep III, or Pepy II or Tutankhaten, have had full adult power at such an age, even if they were king? Not something we can ever know for sure, but I suspect not, simply based on what we as humans are like. Sure, in public they would have all the panopoly of power, but really no adult in the background "advising"? I wonder... I should point out that I myself do not think that Yuya was a regent for Amunhotep III, but I do think that this aspect of who is, or is not a child, should be discussed as it is relevant in regards to Amunhotep III and Tutankhaten and what real power they had, and when.

As an additional point, and one that I think all, or most here recognise. We must reasonably presume that Tutankhaten was raised as an "Atenist" and had no, or only limited knowledge of the "old ways", being presumably cosseted in a palace and not seeing that outside his small world that the populace continued, so the evidence now suggets even from Akhetaten itself, in the "old ways". Is it feasable that only a few years into his reign that he, as an 11 year old, or close to it, could have ordered the overturning of "Atenism" as a result of his own religious or philosophical reasoning. I cannot believe this to have been so, and on this point alone, argue for strong behind the scenes "advice", and that though king, he was not completely his own man. If so with Tutankhaten, then why not with Amunhotep III or Pepy II, though they were not faced with such a singulary unusual problem as "Atenism" I will admit.

The point I make, rather drawn out perhaps, is that in that family at that time in history, 11 or 12 year olds, destined to become king themselves, and based on what their mummies show us, were not seen as adults. Would Amunhotep III, or Pepy II or Tutankhaten, have had full adult power at such an age, even if they were king? Not something we can ever know for sure, but I suspect not, simply based on what we as humans are like. Sure, in public they would have all the panopoly of power, but really no adult in the background "advising"?

I believe that it's established in the records that teaching of elite children began young - as early as five years of age. The high priest Bekenkhonsu recalled that he started school at five and attended four years, followed by eleven years' apprenticeship in the stables of King Seti I, before finally entering the priesthood at 20. During that time, he would have learned more than simple letters: he would have been given responsibilities and necessary skills that prepared him for a life of responsibilities. Now, one would have to assume that a royal child would have begun his training at least as early as Bekenkhonsu and part of that training would have been in how royal government works - whether or not said royal child expected to become king or not.

As to whether Tutankhamun fully understood the changes from Atenism to the traditional religion appears to have taken place after becoming king and may indeed reflect his own beliefs - as we know there was a move back to traditional religion during the reigns of "King Neferneferuaten" and Smenkhkare (Aldred 1988 and Redford 1984), so the change to the old cults may have been in process before Tutankhamun ascended the throne. Perhaps Tutankhamun was just completing acts that his father and preceding king had begun.

While I do not doubt that men such as Ay and Horemheb had a strong link to the king, and may have pressed their viewpoints as advice, the point is that Tutankhamun as a royal prince may also have had enough training to assume responsibility of decision-making as early as 9 years of age. This may not have been the optimal age for such, but then again, we see evidence that Crown Prince Thutmose, when making his sarcophagus for the She-Cat, notes his titles as "Overseer of the Priests of Upper and Lower Egypt, High Priest of Ptah in Memphis and sm-priest (of Ptah)" and may have even held the military title of /hry pDt/, or "regiment commander" (Dodson 1990: 87; 88, n. 11). As he is also shown carrying out these functions - particularly assisting his father Amenhotep III in the first Apis bull burial - all while wearing his sidelock of youth (Dodson 1990: Pl. V(2) - indicates that feature alone does not indicate a youth who could not carry out official royal responsibilities.

The evidence is flimsy about about the return to the normal religion and I doubt we will ever know the truth, but I think we really ascribe to much to a child of perhaps no more than 11 to make such an important decision, and if it was a continuation, then I suggest that what was begun, was not so strong. Egypt did not become what it was by allowing children, even if they were king, to make such important decisions, it would be madness. Imagine if Egypt had been invaded when there was a young child on the throne, would they, because they were king, make battle plans and lead the army, I rather doubt it, so I doubt a child would make such important religious decisions, and not when they were so momentous. It does not matter if they had been trained fom five or there abouts, they were still children, and Ancient Egyptians were not fools.

I have read two of the publications you mention, but not Dodson. A point I would make is that the model beir of Prince Thutmose is of a person wearing a wig and a sidelock. We know that Prince Thutmose was High Priest of Ptah at Memphis, and that position entailed wearing a sidelock, no matter what their age, but why does the figure on the beir also wear a wig, if not an adult? Also, the assertation that the KV35 boy is Thutmose is based on nothing except that he lays, or laid, by Queen Tiye. He also lay by Tutankhamun's mother, so he may well be another son of hers, may as well toss a coin. We will not know until his DNA results are published, and until then we all can only guess. What is the significance of his left hand being clenched, it was certainly done on purpose before his limbs stiffened, does anybody know, or even guess, as I have read nothing about this, and I have read many of the serious books. While his DNA results remain locked away, there is nothing set in stone about him, all is conjecture, the same as what was happening in the Amarna aftermath, by whom and why.

(Dodson 1990: 87; 88, n. 11). As he is also shown carrying out these functions - particularly assisting his father Amenhotep III in the first Apis bull burial - all while wearing his sidelock of youth (Dodson 1990: Pl. V(2) - indicates that feature alone does not indicate a youth who could not carry out official royal responsibilities..

Quite, but it seems to me that royal personages can be shown younger than they actually are. For instance, the son of Ramesses III, Khaemwaset (E), is depicted in QV44 as a youth with a sidelock, and with adult titles, suggesting that a youth would have these titles. I do not dispute that a youth could have important titles, even a baby can be given any number of titles. But the problem with saying that as Khaemwaset has these titles and is shown as a youth, then he must be a youth, and by implication the KV35 boy is Crown Prince Thutmose, is that Khaemwaset was simply portrayed for whatever reason, as a youth at the time of his death. He was actually in his late teens or early twenties at death.

There is evidence from the tombs of many courtiers that the king was not responsible for every aspect of government - no matter what age he was.

Ramesses II is interesting in that many of his sons were promoted during his reign to various roles, but most notably Crown Prince and vizier, so that as a deified monarch, Ramesses in his later years was probably not active as much as he was up to Year 30 or so. Nobody else was king though.

Likewise, younger monarchs must have depended on courtiers for many things, however taking as much responsibility as they wanted as time went on. The exact circumstances were no doubt different for each individual king, who would delegate certain aspects of his rule to others.

As he is also shown carrying out these functions - particularly assisting his father Amenhotep III in the first Apis bull burial - all while wearing his sidelock of youth (Dodson 1990: Pl. V(2) - indicates that feature alone does not indicate a youth who could not carry out official royal responsibilities.

First, apologies for answering in a series of posts and not one, but I wanted to initially answer from the knowledge in my head before burying my head in books etc.

However, I have now located and read the article by Aidan Dodson. On my reading I see nothing to say that the KV35 prince could be Thutmose, and Dodson seems in two minds as to whether he could still be the son of Amunhotep II, prince Webensebu, as Loret thought, though only on the grounds that Webensebu was buried with his father, and lo, the mummy of a prince in the tomb. It is of course possible, barring the DNA evidence, that this is prince Webensebu, though being placed between the two Amarna women counts against this, IMO. The two statuettes of Crown Prince Thutmose both show him with a wig and a sidelock, and as I said before, and as you know, the sidelock is not indicating youth, it is indicating he is a High Priest of Ptah at Memphis, the wig, IMO, is shows that he is an adult. That the KV35 boy has a sidelock mitigates against him being the person shown in the two statuettes. Would he, with his real sidelock, then put on a wig, then a false sidelock ontop of that, I doubt it very much. However, an adult, of whatever age, with a shaved head, would not have a problem.

I used the example of how Prince Khaemweset (E) is depicted as a youth, but seems to have actually been an adult, in Egyptian eyes, a teen or very young man to ours. I further also mention one of Ramesses III other sons, Prince Amenherkhepshef, shown in QV 55, as another example of a person depicted as younger than they were at death. The reason I point this out is that the KV35 boy is simply that, a boy, still with his sidelock, not a shaved head, and as such I do not think he is Crown Prince Thutmose, whose tomb surely lies at Saqarra, where the funery objects associated with him and his cat were found, not Thebes. However, after all that, I perhaps argue against myself. It is the matter of the left hand being clenched. If the mummy of the boy in KV43 really is Amenemhat, son of Thutmose IV, then we have the certain remains of a crown prince, with a clenched left hand. Is it possible that this indicates a crown prince, for it must indicate something as his hand must have been put into that postition deliberately. Then, as I mentioned earlier, KV35 prince also has his left hand clenched. I really think insufficient attention gets paid to these matters, perhaps because they are simply seen as unimportant trivia compared to the pages and pages written about KV35YL right arm, I don't know.

Well, at one time nobody considered that Yuya [another "it nTr"] had any family relationship to Amenhotep III except being his father-in-law. But the DNA picture indicates otherwise. Yuya is a blood relative of that pharaoh. So I don't know how anyone can know for certain that this was also not true of Ay--that he was no blood kin to the royals. In fact, the next king to sit on the throne, Horemheb, claimed to be a son of Thutmose III. In Egyptian "son" can represent "male descendant", too. The ring is more enigmatic than indicative because, in the double cartouches of the item, the name of Ankhesenamun is written there without indicating any wifely status, such as would have been had "Hmt nsw" been included. People have assumed for ages that Ay was a brother of Queen Tiye--but based on what? But let's say he was. Somebody knows if Yuya was related to Amenhotep III on the paternal side, I am quite certain---but that information hasn't been revealed. If so, then if Ay was a full brother of Tiye he was a descendant of kings.

Quote:

the idea yuya and mutemwia were siblings is an old one from my understanding of the DNA, yuya was maternally related to amenhotep III....

From the information of the JAMA paper, which deals with STRs, there is no way to know anything other than that Amenhotep III shares quite a lot of DNA with Yuya. Just by looking at the alleles, it's not possible to see where those that AIII shared with Yuya came from--as the DNA of Thutmose IV was not included in the study. If it had been, we would know where the numbers came from.

Quote:

this in no way proves yuya was a descendant of kings.

Quote:

A negative can't prove anything. Further information is needed.

Here is a link to a paper that makes some points about this matter. For one thing, Yuya would have been old enough to be the father of even Thutmose IV--so cannot have been the uncle of Amenhotep III. A more distant relationship needs to be sought.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there, we need the DNA analysis of Tuthmosis IV and possibly Amenhotep II to examine where Yuya is placed in relation to Amenhotep III.

In the case of Ay we have no way at present to be certain of his relationship to the royal family, there are too many pieces of information missing. It seems logical that he may have been the sole living male relative, but we don't know in what capacity that could be.

Likewise because we don't have his mummy, we can't compare Horemheb to Tuthmosis III. It is entirely possible that Horemheb is a descendent of that king through one of his daughters but without further inscriptional information or DNA we just don't know. I know Hawass was searching for the bones of a woman and unborn child found in his Sakkara tomb - IF they were related in any way to the other mummies in the DNA study then you have a link back, but with so many generations involved it could be tough to prove.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there, we need the DNA analysis of Tuthmosis IV and possibly Amenhotep II to examine where Yuya is placed in relation to Amenhotep III.

In the case of Ay we have no way at present to be certain of his relationship to the royal family, there are too many pieces of information missing. It seems logical that he may have been the sole living male relative, but we don't know in what capacity that could be.

Likewise because we don't have his mummy, we can't compare Horemheb to Tuthmosis III. It is entirely possible that Horemheb is a descendent of that king through one of his daughters but without further inscriptional information or DNA we just don't know. I know Hawass was searching for the bones of a woman and unborn child found in his Sakkara tomb - IF they were related in any way to the other mummies in the DNA study then you have a link back, but with so many generations involved it could be tough to prove.

Ay is a tough one, but to prove that Yuya was the son of a king [or disprove it] would be simple enough. Horemheb stated, I believe, that Thutmose III was his ancestor. It's not possible, IMO, that king can have been his actual father as that would mean Horemheb was a very old man when he became the pharaoh. But a son of Thutmose IV I think very possible. Since Thutmose III was a greater king than the next two successors, being his descendant was a source of more pride.

Perhaps the finds in KV40 may encourage the testing of Tuthmosis IV because it is agreed that the remains found in that tomb represent family members of that king and Amenhotep III.

As part of a study of that tomb's meaning and function you could argue that DNA testing could be very informative. We know that several princes and princesses as well as possibly minor queens were in that burial. It would be fascinating to learn how they relate to the kings and also to the boy in KV35 for example (or any of the other royal children who appear to have been buried with Amenhotep II. III or Tuthmosis IV). I suspect that sons of the GRW who died early were buried with their father, but sons of minor wives were not. We may learn whether any of these children were the result of Amenhotep III's father-daughter marriages, or potentially link to other known individuals in the family tree.

Another direction of DNA study may be to compare the remains from KV55 with those of the Amenhotep III - Yuya line. There is the suggestion that Nefetari (Ramesses II's first GRW) had a link with Ay due to the object (knob from a chest or the top of a walking stick) with his cartouche that was found in her tomb. If there is a link through Nefertari via her sons to Yuya you have an argument that Ay was a son of Yuya, even without having his body. I'm sure Hawass talked in his lectures about the 19th Dynasty royal mummies being tested to compare them to the 18th, so it's possible some data already exists.